The numbers just landed: 860,000 people in Britain played padel in the last 12 months. Infrastructure growth at 43% annually. Courts tripling. Celebrity endorsements. Fashion brands clamouring in. Luxury clubs with cocktail bars. Investment flowing in from Qatar and beyond.
On paper, it's a boom.
But there's a question buried in those figures that nobody's really asking: What kind of boom is this, and what model are we actually choosing?
Because if you dig into the data — and we did — you find something quietly troubling. The most affluent areas in England have more than six times the number of padel venues compared to the least deprived areas. Meanwhile, court rental in London easily reaches £60–£100 per hour, pricing the sport alongside golf. The growth narrative, in other words, is also a story about who gets access and who doesn't.
But that's not even the real question.
Infrastructure Isn't Culture. And We're Choosing the Wrong Thing.
Here's what's curious: The UK has built 1,000 courts in five years. The LTA has invested £6 million. Private equity is racing to secure sites. Every operator from David Lloyd to new startups is expanding. Facilities are booked solid. The demand is real.
And yet something feels off.
Ray Algar, founder of Oxygen Consulting, asked the right question: "How do we want this sport to develop and who do we want it to be played by?" He's not asking about participation numbers. He's asking about trajectory. Because without intervention, padel risks mirroring the early UK gym industry, which initially catered to wealthier individuals and communities before evolving into a more accessible market.
In other words: we're watching infrastructure get built before culture gets built. Courts before ritual. Facilities before community.
But here's the thing — we can see how this could have gone differently. Because other markets, facing similar starting points, chose another path.
What Sweden, France, and Argentina Did Differently
Sweden. With 600,000 players and 4,200 courts, Sweden has achieved penetration of roughly 6% of its population — making padel even more popular than in the UK despite having half the population. How? Through a club-based membership model where membership offers significantly cheaper court rentals and encourages community engagement and club events. Not premium facilities. Accessible membership.
France. In just five years, France grew from approximately 110,000 players (2020) to nearly 500,000 (2025). But more importantly, municipalities are choosing to invest in municipal land with preferential rates or even free admission for residents, positioning padel as a vector of social connection and community life. The French Tennis Federation is coordinating this deliberately. France now has 4,100 courts with 850,000 players, and the FFT plans to almost triple the number of courts by 2029 in response to demand.
Argentina. In 1982, padel became a "social phenomenon." The sport emerged organically through community clubs, leading to the creation of the first official padel association in the world (APA, 1988) — which then founded the International Padel Federation in 1991. Argentineans embraced padel as a social activity, creating a sense of community that transcends the court. Not designed from above. Emerged from need.
Italy. Here's where it gets interesting. Italy grew explosively from 2019 to 2023, reaching 8,520 courts. But then something shifted. In 2024, growth moderated to just over 700 courts added (vs. the explosive growth phase), and in the first 80 days of 2025, only 30–35 courts were built. Why? Growth without planning created a lack of youth development, declining interest among younger players, and sustainability challenges for facilities that didn't meet minimum viability thresholds. Italy built facilities without building culture. It's what happens when you rush.
The Missing Conversation: Where Are the UK Councils?
Here's what makes the UK's silence especially notable: unlike France, Sweden, or even Italy, the UK public sector has essentially sat this one out.
Hounslow Council is investing nearly £1 million for six padel courts across two leisure centres — presented as a major municipal initiative. Manchester is developing 42 courts through a partnership model with the LTA, unlocking £10 million from councils and partners. Sutton Council approved padel at the London Cancer Hub, but it's a private developer partnership, not municipal infrastructure.
That's the sum total of meaningful public sector padel development in Britain.
Compare that to France: Municipalities are deliberately establishing municipal courts with "preferential rates or even free admission for residents," framing padel as a social infrastructure that "attracts both Sunday sportsmen and women as well as regular practitioners" and serves as "a vector of social connection." The FFT isn't waiting for private investors to take the lead — they're leading.
The UK planning framework actually supports this. Access to sport and recreation is expressly supported by the National Planning Policy Framework, and most local plans. Padel contributes directly to the overarching goal of encouraging healthier lifestyles. The infrastructure is allowed. It's not that councils can't build municipal courts. It's that they're choosing not to.
When councils do invest, they're partnering with private leisure operators and treating padel as an income-generation opportunity — converting underutilized tennis courts and outsourcing management. Local authorities are "increasingly exploring padel as a means to reactivate underused land and enhance community sport provision without heavy capital outlay" through "shared-risk models" where private operators design, build and operate facilities on council land.
The result? Infrastructure built by and for investors. Community provision absent. The public sector isn't leading — it's following, and only occasionally at that.
The Real Comparison
The UK has built 1,000 courts. So has France (4,100 courts), and Sweden (4,200 courts), and Argentina (7,000+ courts). The difference isn't facilities. It's model — and who's responsible for building it.
UK: Investment-led, premium-focused, concentrated in affluent areas. Private developers leading. Councils mostly silent. Target demographic: middle-class professionals with existing racket sports experience. 86% of UK padel players have prior experience in tennis, squash, or badminton.
Sweden: Community-led, club-based, membership model emphasizing affordability. Social infrastructure built from the ground up.
France: Public-sector coordinated, municipal courts, resident accessibility prioritized by the FFT and local authorities working in concert.
Argentina: Organic, community-driven, built from social need rather than investor opportunity.
One is a facilities program run by private capital. The others are cultural infrastructure run by public commitment and community need.
Algar's warning is stark: "Without intervention, padel risks mirroring the early UK gym industry, which initially catered to wealthier individuals and communities." We've seen this story. We know how it ends: a market that's valuable for investors but never truly embedded in how ordinary people live.
But here's the critical part: intervention was possible. Councils had the framework, the opportunity, and the underutilized assets (declining tennis courts). They chose not to use them. That's not market dynamics. That's policy absence.
The Tercer Tiempo Problem
Here's what Spain understood that the UK is struggling to replicate: Padel isn't really about the sport.
In Spain, padel fits neatly into a long tradition of valuing shared experiences through food, sport, and public space. The sport has quietly reshaped how people spend their free time, becoming a routine — one that blends competition, conversation and community in equal measure. The "after-padel" culture is significant, with players frequently socializing over drinks and tapas after matches. Padel clubs are social hubs where friendships are forged and business deals are often made.
UK operators are starting to acknowledge this. The new venues have bars, lounges, F&B. Luxury brands like Prada and Valentino are cashing in on padel's aspirational aesthetic and affluent fanbase, seeing clubs as exclusive venues to reach high-net-worth clients. Padel is "arguably the most fashionable" sport, with venues like Padel Social Club framed as "the Soho House of padel."
But there's a difference between designing a social experience and enabling one. Between curating ritual and letting ritual emerge.
One is lifestyle service. The other is genuine culture.
The Uncomfortable Question
Oxygen Consulting poses a challenge: "Can we apply the same mindset to padel — ensuring it does not just become a premium, exclusive sport but one that is genuinely accessible to everyone?" They reference Rainer Schaller's transformation of the global fitness industry by asking "How would Aldi or Lidl operate a gym?"
Because right now, the UK is building padel for a very specific demographic: urban professionals with disposable income, existing racket-sports experience, and access to affluent postcodes. 86% of UK padel players have prior experience in tennis, squash, or badminton, meaning padel is drawing mainly from existing racket sports rather than attracting a completely new player base.
That's not a tribe. That's a segment. And segments can be marketed to, but they don't build culture.
So What Actually Matters?
The 860,000 figure is impressive. But it's a lagging indicator, not a leading one. The real question is what happens in the next five years.
Does padel become embedded in how ordinary British people spend their time — weekday evenings, local clubs, accessible courts, genuine social ritual — or does it calcify into a premium leisure category, seasonally relevant, aspirationally marketed, eventually displaced by the next trend?
Algar's warning is stark: "Without intervention, padel risks mirroring the early UK gym industry, which initially catered to wealthier individuals and communities before evolving into a more accessible market." In other words: we know how this story can end. We've seen it before.
The infrastructure is there now. Courts are built. Investment is committed. The trajectory is set — unless someone deliberately changes it.
And here's the thing: Other countries already made that choice. Sweden chose membership. France chose municipal. Argentina chose community. They're not building premium facilities racing for ROI. They're building the conditions for a sport to become part of how people actually live.
Meanwhile, the UK councils that could have led this conversation have been largely silent. The LTA has filled the vacuum with private partnerships. The market has filled the rest.
The question isn't how many people will play padel. It's what the sport will mean to them. Whether it becomes part of the fabric of urban life or remains a fashionable option for those who can afford it.
Right now, the numbers suggest we're building the wrong thing for the right reasons. And the public sector's absence suggests we're building it without asking the right people.
What Pádel, INC. Believes
We didn't start this brand to sell more padel apparel. We started it because we believe padel culture — genuine, embedded, ritualistic padel culture — matters. The social dimension. The tercer tiempo. The weekday evening that reshapes how you spend your time. The tribe, not the demographic.
We think about the clothes you wear between the court and the bar, not the clothes that optimise your serve. We're interested in the life the sport enables, not the sport itself.
Which is why this question of who gets access, and what actually builds community, isn't academic for us. It's foundational.
The 860,000 figure is real. But culture — actual, lived, embedded culture — takes longer to build. It requires access. It requires affordability. It requires something to emerge organically rather than be designed from above.
It requires councils willing to treat padel as infrastructure, not as a revenue opportunity. It requires the public sector to lead, not follow.
Spain proved that's possible. France is proving it now. Argentina built it from the ground up.
The UK still has time to choose which path it takes. But only if someone asks the question — and more importantly, if councils listen.
To borrow Algar's framing: How do we want padel in Britain to develop? And for whom?
And perhaps more urgently: Who's going to decide?
That's the 860,000-player question worth asking.